Govind Ram Bhadu vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 15.02.2019 (Annexure-6), whereby, petitioner has been transferred from Panchayat Samiti, Nokha to Panchayat Samiti, Kolayat.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been frequently transferred and that the transfer of the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of order 08.09.2014 requiring not to undertake transfers during three year period, whereas, the petitioner has been transferred before the said period. Submissions were also made that the transfer is contrary to the Rules and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

A bare perusal of the order dated 15.02.2019 indicates that the order has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner pursuant to the resolution of Administration and Establishment Committee of Zila Parishad and, therefore, as the transfer of the petitioner is well within the provisions of Rule 289 of the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, it cannot be said that the order has been passed contrary to the Rules.

So far as the submissions regarding violation of order dated 08.09.2014 (Annexure-8) is concerned, in the order dated 15.02.2019 it has been indicated that petitioner has been transferred for administrative reasons.

Despite the stipulation made in the order dated 08.09.2014, if a transfer takes place based on administrative reason, based on alleged violation of the said order, the order impugned cannot be questioned by the petitioner.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Nagorao Shivaji Chavan v. Dr. Sunil Purushottam Bhamre : AIR 2019 SC 189 has laid down that notwithstanding the use of expression 'ordinarily the tenure is 3 years', inter alia, in the case of administrative exigencies, transfer is permissible.

So far as the plea raised by the petitioner regarding frequent transfer is concerned, from the material available on record though the transfers are multiple, however, the same cannot be reason enough to interfere in the order impugned.

In view thereof, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefor, dismissed.